BALDEV Vs. RAMESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the order dated 24.9.2007 whereby the application filed by two of the legal heirs of original Defendant No. 1 Sukh Ram has been allowed and the order dated 22.5.1995 whereby the deceased Sukh Ram was proceeded against ex -parte has been recalled and the order dated 31.5.2007 whereby three of the legal representatives of Defendant No. 1 were proceeded against ex -parte was set -aside.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that Sh. Bania predecessor -in -interest of Respondent No. 6 herein, filed a suit against Sukh Ram predecessor -in -interest of Respondents 1 to 5 and Sh. Baldev the present Petitioner. In this suit it was claimed that the Plaintiff Bania Ram and Defendant No. 2 Baldev who are real brothers are owners in possession of the suit land and that Defendant No. 2 be restrained from dispossessing the Plaintiff or raising any construction over the suit land. No relief was claimed against Sukh Ram but he was made a party because it was alleged that Chandu, father of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 were tenants under Smt. Rai Dei and Sukh Ram and that tenancy rights had matured into ownership. It was also stated in the written statement filed by the present Petitioner that he had purchased the share of Sukh Ram in the suit land vide sale deed registered on 21.5.1968. Sukh Ram was served through his son Ranjeet Singh and in the report of the process server it was stated that the son is a family member and resides with the father There after the order dated 22.5.1995 was passed whereby Defendant No. 1 Sukh Ram was proceeded against ex -parte.

(3.) THEREAFTER on 4.8.2007, an application was filed by all the legal heirs of Sukh Ram praying that the ex -parte orders dated 22.5.1995 and 31.5.2007 be set -aside. In this application, it was alleged that Sukh Ram had never been served properly and that later the legal representatives of Sukh Ram were wrongly served through publication. It was also stated that the legal representatives were out of Station and could not inform their counsel and thus wrongly proceeded against ex -parte on 31.5.2007. The learned trial Court allowed the application and thereafter the legal representatives filed written statement and counter claim. Hence, the present petition.